Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 5434 (MAD)

R. Ramesh v. State by Inspector of Police

2009-12-08

K.MOHAN RAM

body2009
Judgment The petitioner herein, who is the accused in C.C.No.252 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi, wherein he is facing trial for the alleged offence under Sections 294 B and 506(ii) I.P.C., has filed the above Crl.O.P. seeking to quash all further proceedings therein. 2. In the charge sheet filed by the respondent against the petitioner herein, it is stated that at about 8 pm. on 9. 2005 the accused uttered the following words to the defacto complainant, namely, TAMIL 3. The aforesaid utterences, according to the respondent attracts the ingredients of the offences under Sections 294B and 506(i) I.P.C. 4. Heard both. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner by basing reliance on the following decisions reported in K. Jayaramanuju vs. Janakaraj & another ( 1996 (I) CTC 470 ) and Noble Mohandass vs. State (1988 (2) MWN (Cr) 184) submitted that the said utterences alleged to have been made by the accused will not attract the ingredients of the offences under Sections 294B and 506(ii) I.P.C. 6. On the aforesaid submissions, the learned Govt. Advocate was heard, who is unable to repel the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. In the decision reported in 1996 (I) CTC 470 , Karpagavinayagam, J (as His Lordship then was) in paragraph 5, has laid down as follows:- "To prove the offence under Section 294 I.P.C. mere utterance of abscene word are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in this case". 9. In the decision reported in 1988 (2) MWN (Cr) 184, it has been laid down by the learned Judge of this Court as under:- "Further for being an offence under Section 506(2) which is rather an important offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the person uttering does not exactly mean what he says and also when the person to whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually." 10. If in the light of the principles laid down in the aforesaid two decisions, the allegations contained in the charge sheet and in the FIR and the statement of witnesses are considered, this Court is of the considered view that the ingredients of the offences under Sections 294 B and 506(ii) are not made out. 11. A perusal of the complaint/FIR does not show that on hearing the obscene words which were uttered by the accused, the witnesses felt annoyed and in the statements of witnesses Ganesan and Ravi, they have not stated that on hearing the obscene words they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294 B I.P.C. are made out. Therefore, the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner merits acceptance. 12. Similarly, neither in the complaint nor in the statement of witnesses it has been stated that when the accused uttered the words threatening the complainant, he did not feel threatened actually. Further, it is not alleged in the complaint that except the utterences, there was actual attempt on the part of the accused to assault the accused. Therefore, if the law laid down in 1988 (2) MWN (Cr) 184 is applied to the facts of this case, it could be seen that the ingredients of the offences alleged under Section 506(ii) are also not attracted. 13. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the above Crl.O.P. is allowed quashing all further proceedings in C.C.No.252 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kallakurichi, against the petitioner.